Judgment :- K.A. Swami, CJ. In this petition under Secs. 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the petitioner has prayed for punishing the respondent for his intentional and wilful obstruction in giving effect to an order of attachment of movables ordered in R.E.P.No.99 of 1994 in L.A.O.P.No.135 of 1990 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Namakkal. 2. Two bits of land belonging to the petitioner, comprised in Survey No.545/7 and 546/3 measuring 0.41 and 1.78 acres respectively, totalling 2.19 acres, situate in Chandrasekarapurah village, Rasipuram Taluk, Salem District, were acquired for the purpose of providing houses to the persons belonging to Adi Dravidar community. An award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer awarding a compensation of Rs.52,218. The possession of the lands was taken by the Government on 3. 1990, pursuant to the award. Aggrieved by the said award, the complainant sought for a reference to the Civil Court. Accordingly, the case was referred under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, to the Sub Court, Namakkal. The reference was registered as L.A.O.P.No.135 of 1990. The Sub Court, Namakkal enhanced the compensation to Rs.5,73,277.83, with interest at 9% per annum from 3. 1990, for a period of one year and at 15% per annum for the subsequent period till the date of realisation, less Rs.25. It was this award which was put into execution in R.E.P.No.99 of 1994, in which the petitioner had prayed for attachment of the following movable properties: A Jeep No.T.M.T. 5852 belonging to the Tamil Nadu State and under the custody and possession of Namakkal Divisional Development Officer -Value Rs.50,000. Tables - 10, Chairs - 25, Electric fans -10, Typewriting machines - 3, available at the Revenue Divisional Officer’s Office, Namakkal - value Rs.30,000. On 24. 1994, though served, the respondent in the Execution Petition was absent, therefore he was set ex parte and an order for attachment of the aforesaid movables was issued. As the attachment was not effected the warrant was re-issued on 7. 1994, returnable by 8. 1994. Even then, the attachment was not effected for want of police aid. The petition filed by the petitioner seeking police aid was allowed only on 110. 1995. On 12. 1994 it was ordered that the attachment be effected by 11. As the attachment was not effected the warrant was re-issued on 7. 1994, returnable by 8. 1994. Even then, the attachment was not effected for want of police aid. The petition filed by the petitioner seeking police aid was allowed only on 110. 1995. On 12. 1994 it was ordered that the attachment be effected by 11. 1995 and the same was not effected because the Personal Assistant to the respondent did not allow it to be effected and made the following endorsement: "Necessary action is being taken. The entire amount will be remitted in a fort-night. In the meantime the execution of warrant may kindly be stopped in the public interest." The Bailiff returned the warrant of attachment with the following sherrah, dated 6. 1994: "On 6. 1994 went to village and the address named here to effect the attachment and came to know that the Jeep has gone to a camp and since an endorsement is made as above and the attachment was obstructed the attachment warrant is returned without executing it and along with the endorsement of the officer." The petitioner then filed an application on 8. 1994 stating that the respondent had refused to allow the attachment of the properties and obstructed to effect the same, and, therefore, he prayed for directing police assistance for effecting the attachment. That application was allowed only on 12. 1994 and the attachment was directed to be effected with police aid and the same be returned by 11. 1995. However, the police did not render assistance on the ground that the order for rendering police assistance should come from the Superintendent of Police, therefore, the Bailiff returned the warrant on 1. 1995 with the following sherrah: "On 1. 1994 and the attachment was directed to be effected with police aid and the same be returned by 11. 1995. However, the police did not render assistance on the ground that the order for rendering police assistance should come from the Superintendent of Police, therefore, the Bailiff returned the warrant on 1. 1995 with the following sherrah: "On 1. 95 went to the said village stated herein, along with the petitioner herein to effect the said attachment warrant for effecting attachment and for police aid, the said police station were approached as it was stated that police aid can be given only if the order comes from the Superintendent of Police, the attachment could not be effected and after getting the said endorsement from the petitioner, the attachment warrant is returned.“ In view of this, the petitioner had to approach the High Court with W.P.No.5939 of 1995, seeking a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Salem, and the Inspector of Police, Namakkal to grant police protection to the Court Amin of the Subordinate Court Namakkal for effecting the attachment of the movables as ordered in R.E.P.No.99 of 1994. Learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that having regard to the order passed by the Subordinate Judge Namakkal in the execution proceedings, the Inspector of Police, Namakkal will act in aid of the order of the executive Court and give necessary help and protection to the Court Amin in carrying out the work of attachment as ordered by the Court. The writ petition was disposed of on 8. 1995 in terms of the aforesaid submission made by the learned Additional Government Pleader. Inspite of the direction from the High Court, Police aid was not given, therefore, the Deputy Nazir of the Court returned the warrant with the following submission made on oath, on 111. 1995. ”It is hereby submitted that police aid was not available till 111. 95 to execute the above warrant. Sd/A.Vembusekaran, Petitioner 111. 95 Till 111. 95, inspite of several visits, police aid is not available with a written statement from the petitioner, the warrant is returned un-executed. Sd/O.R.Shanmugam, Sr.Bailif 111. 95 Police aid not available Solemnly affirmed Sd/N.L.N., Deputy Nazir, 195. The petitioner again approached the Superintendent of Police, Salem, by a representation dated 211. 1995 requesting him to direct the Sub Inspector of Police (Law & Order), Namakkal to render assistance for effecting the attachment. Sd/O.R.Shanmugam, Sr.Bailif 111. 95 Police aid not available Solemnly affirmed Sd/N.L.N., Deputy Nazir, 195. The petitioner again approached the Superintendent of Police, Salem, by a representation dated 211. 1995 requesting him to direct the Sub Inspector of Police (Law & Order), Namakkal to render assistance for effecting the attachment. After all these efforts, ultimately, police aid was given on 112. 1995, but the attachment could not be effected in view of the fact that the respondent herein prevented the effecting of the attachment of the aforesaid movable properties. Therefore, the bailiff submitted the following report on 112. 1995: “Report regarding obstruction to attachment of schedule property: On 112. 1995 to attach the property described in the schedule to the attachment warrant, hereunder went to the office of the Divisional Development Office along with the petitioner, police, the witnesses who have signed hereunder, to attach the schedule property namely T.M.D. 5852 Jeep, when it was enquired, it was informed that the jeep has gone to Mohanur on camp duty and that the probable time of arrival of the jeep is not known and the jeep is not available for attachment. When the Divisional Development Officer was contacted in person at his office, when the attachment warrant was shown to him and when he was requested to permit to effect the attachment of the schedule property, he prevented the effecting of attachment of the schedule properties. Hence, it is prayed objections and the obstructions by the respondent may be removed and orders may be given by this Hon’ble Court.” The aforesaid report has also been signed by two official witnesses, viz., a Police Constable and a Head Constable apart from two private witnesses by name Karuppannan and Mariappan. The petitioner also filed a petition on 112. 1995 stating that the Senior Bailiff along with the police and witnesses went to the office of the respondent to effect attachment of the movables. However, me respondent refused to allow attachment of the movable properties obstructed and prevented them from effecting the attachment. Therefore, the petitioner also prayed for removal of the obstruction in effecting the attachment. These facts are borne out from the records produced in the Type Set. 3. However, me respondent refused to allow attachment of the movable properties obstructed and prevented them from effecting the attachment. Therefore, the petitioner also prayed for removal of the obstruction in effecting the attachment. These facts are borne out from the records produced in the Type Set. 3. Apart from filing the aforesaid petition for removal of the obstruction in the attachment, the petitioner has also filed a Contempt Application under Secs.10 and 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, for punishing the respondent for his intentional and wilful obstruction in giving effect to the order of attachment as ordered in R.E.P.No.99 of 1994. In the English translation of the report of the Bailiff, dated 112. 1995, instead of mentioning as “the Revenue Divisional’ Officer”, it is wrongly mentioned as “Divisional Development Officer.” The respondent is the Sub-Collector and he is also the Revenue Divisional Officer. 4. In paragraph V of the petition, the petitioner has specifically stated that the Senior Bailiff met the respondent herein and explained him about the order of attachment passed by the Sub-Judge, Namakkal and also about the police aid directed to the said effect; that the respondent, after hearing the request of the Bailiff to allow the attachment of the properties, did not permit the same to be done and that he wilfully obstructed the normal course of justice and by such recalcitrant attitude the respondent has undermined the authority of the Court and has given scant regard for an order passed by a competent Court. In paragraph VI, the petitioner has further stated that the act of the respondent in causing obstruction and preventing the effecting of attachment of the movable is not only calculated to obstruct or interfere with the course of justice, but also amounts to undermining the prestige of courts and also makes a mockery of the entire judicial proceedings; that in the eyes of public, it creates an impression that the Sub-Collector is above the judicial orders passed by competent courts and that the obstruction caused by the respondent was intentional and wilful. In paragraph VII of the petition, the petitioner has specifically stated that inspite of the information given to the respondent about the order passed by the executive Court his wilful and intentional disobedience to the same constitutes a clear contempt of Court and has lowered the prestige of the judicial proceedings in the estimation of the general public and that if such obstruction is not punished the litigants like the petitioner would lose all confidence in the judicial system. Again in paragraph VIII, he has further stated that the properties sought to be attached belong to the Government and the respondent being a government servant duty-bound to co-operate with the carrying out of an order of attachment passed by the competent court. Instead, the respondent has not only obstructed the process of effecting the attachment but has wilfully disobeyed the order of the Court and that the question of removal of obstruction does not arise in the case of the respondent as he is a Government servant and has no business to obstruct the attachment of the movables as ordered by the Court. 5. The respondent has filed four counter affidavits. In the first counter affidavit, sworn to on 27. 1996, with reference to the averments made in paragraphs V, VI and VIII, he has stated thus: “As regards Paras. V, VI, VII of the affidavit, it is submitted that it is not correct to say that the execution of order was wilfully obstructed, the Bailiff was informed that the matter is pending with the Special Tahsildar and I have requested him to proceed against the property belonging to the Special Tahsildar (A.D.W) Namakkal, so that, he will take appropriate steps to remit the amount in this regard. Despite request made to the Bailiff of the Sub Court, he came with warrant very often with ulterior motive to attach the property of this office. I submit I have to maintain Law and Order problem very often. If my office furnitures and the jeeps of this office are attached, it will lead to affect the public interest. In Namakkal Town so many Government Offices are in existence. Since I am not a party in L.A.O.P. as well as in the execution petition. It is submitted, I have not obstructed the order made by the Competent Court.” Thus, he has denied the very fact of obstruction caused by him. 6. In Namakkal Town so many Government Offices are in existence. Since I am not a party in L.A.O.P. as well as in the execution petition. It is submitted, I have not obstructed the order made by the Competent Court.” Thus, he has denied the very fact of obstruction caused by him. 6. In the second counter affidavit sworn to on 9th September, 1996, he has stated thus: “2.1 submit that I have not wilfully obstructed the effecting of the attachment of the movables as alleged by the petitioner. 3. The contention in paragraph 3 that I had written a letter to the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal questioning the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal attaching the Sub Collector’s bungalow, is not at all true and the petitioner has made this statement only to cast aspersions on me without any justification.” 7. On the same day (9. 1996), the respondent has also filed another counter affidavit, in which he has stated as follows: “2. I submit that I have filed a detailed counter affidavit explaining the circumstances relating to the above Contempt Application. In the said counter affidavit, I have clearly mentioned that I did not cause any wilful obstruction to the orders passed by the Court below. I have also mentioned in the said counter that as soon as I came to know of the order of attachment, I had requested the District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer, Salem as well as the Special Tahsildar (A.D.W.) Namakkal on 212. 1994 itself to take appropriate steps to remit the enhanced compensation before the Sub Court, Namakkal with immediate effect, I submit that subsequently, the attachment was effected and the amounts due under the decree, have already been deposited in Court/on 20.8.1996.” In paragraph 3, he has also withdrawn all his comments made in the counter affidavit, which are likely to create an impression that he was adopting an unwanted stand which was not warranted in the circumstances of the case. He has also further pleaded that he has the greatest respect for the dignity of the Courts and the need to spontaneously obey the directions or the decrees or orders of this Court as well as any other Court established in this State. He has also further pleaded that he has the greatest respect for the dignity of the Courts and the need to spontaneously obey the directions or the decrees or orders of this Court as well as any other Court established in this State. He has also submitted that he had already tendered his unconditional apology to this Court in the counter affidavit filed by him earlier and prayed that this Court may be pleased to accept the unconditional apology tendered by him. .8. In the last counter affidavit sworn to on 9. 1996, he has stated thus: .“The reference made to the action of the learned Subordinate Judge as having caused stress and unbearable strain is a statement which I ought not to have made and I realise, that in the discharge of my official duties, I ought not to have made such comments about the orders passed by the learned Subordinate Judge. I express my deep and sincere regrets and tender unconditional apology for such comments. By stating that warrants were returned, I have only meant that on my request for tune to pay the amount, the Court staff had taken back the warrant. I did not handle the warrant by myself.” 9. The complainant has filed an additional affidavit, in which he has stated that the respondent wilfully obstructed effecting of the attachment of movables, viz., jeep, tables and chairs etc. belonging to the Government and in the possession of the respondent, which were sought to be attached with police aid in execution of the decree in his favour in a Land Acquisition Original Petition, that the attachment could not be effected due to the obstruction caused by the respondent and that the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the execution petition. .10. belonging to the Government and in the possession of the respondent, which were sought to be attached with police aid in execution of the decree in his favour in a Land Acquisition Original Petition, that the attachment could not be effected due to the obstruction caused by the respondent and that the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the execution petition. .10. A reading of the averments made in the petition, the counter affidavits filed by the respondent and the additional affidavit filed by the complainant, coupled with the report made by the bailiff returning the warrant on the ground that the respondent obstructed and prevented the execution of the warrant of attachment, would leave no doubt that the respondent, with full knowledge that the warrant of attachment had been issued pursuant to the order passed by the Sub-Court, Namakkal in execution of the award decree to attach the movables in the custody of the respondent, has not only disobeyed the order of attachment, but has also wilfully and intentionally caused obstruction to the course of justice by illegally preventing and obstructing the execution of the order of attachment, and thereby defied the course of justice and made a mockery of judicial proceedings, authority of the Court and the majesty of law. 11. The respondent is an I.A.S. Officer. He must be expected to know the implications of the Court order, that too, when the warrant of attachment was issued after prolonged proceedings, it was expected of him to immediately arrange for payment of the amount due, or else, approach the Court of the Subordinate Judge, seek time for payment of the amount due under the award decree and till then keep in abeyance the warrant of attachment or to seek for withdrawal of the attachment. The respondent being a highly placed Officer belonging to the I.A.S. Cadre, should not have disobeyed the order of the Court and obstruction the execution of the warrant of attachment. On the contrary, he should have acted in aid of the execution of the warrant of attachment. But, unfortunately, he caused obstruction to the effecting of the warrant of attachment. Such an act was nothing but wilful and intentional disobedience to the order of the Court and obstruction to the execution of the Court order and thereby wilfully and intentionally interfering with the course of justice. But, unfortunately, he caused obstruction to the effecting of the warrant of attachment. Such an act was nothing but wilful and intentional disobedience to the order of the Court and obstruction to the execution of the Court order and thereby wilfully and intentionally interfering with the course of justice. Of course, the course of the counter affidavit file don 9. 1996, he has tendered unconditional apology in the event the Court were to come to the conclusion that he has committed contempt of the Subordinate Judge, Namakkal. Probably, by referring to as “Subordinate Judge” he meant the Court of the Subordinate Judge. He has, in one of the additional counter affidavits, stated that he had withdrawn all that he has stated in the letter addressed to the Collector, a copy of which was sent to the Sub Judge. But, in the said letter, dated 211. 1995, which is also produced in the case, he has also stated that the warrants are returned to the sub-Judge, Namakkal stating that the amounts will be deposited by the concerned Tahsildars soon. Thus, the fact remains that in the purported exercise of his authority as Sub Collector or Revenue Divisional Officer, the respondent has tried to undermine the order of the Court and has obstructed the execution of the warrant and thereby the same was returned unexecuted, which amounts to interference with the course of justice. We must point out here that nobody is above law and every one is expected obey the law and act in aid of the law. The Court order obstructed in such a manner, that too by a highly placed officer belonging to I.A.S. Cadre, is allowed to go unpunished, that the impression that would be created in the mind of the public is that the Court orders have no authority and ineffective and no purpose will be served in obtaining the orders of the Court inasmuch as the same cannot be executed. Such an impression or belief, if allowed to settle in the mind of the public, it would corrode the very confidence of the public in judiciary, which is the main asset of the judiciary, and it is the public confidence that gives added strength and value to the judicial order apart from the authority of law when it is respected and obeyed. The conduct of the respondent in wilfully and intentionally disobeying the order of attachment and obstructing the course of justice amounts to contempt of Court. In Pratap Singh v. Gurbaksh Singh, A.I.R. 1962 S.C 1172: (1963)1 S.C.J. 87: 1963 M.L.J. (Crl) 49: (1963)1 M.L.J. (S.C.) 55: (1963)1 An.W.R. (S.C.) 55: (1962)2 Crl.L.J. 262 the Supreme Court has observed that "there are many ways of obstructing the Court and any conduct by which the course of justice is prevented either by a part or a stranger is a contempt." The aforesaid observation of the Supreme Court squarely applies to the present case. This is not a case in which it can be said that the respondent had no knowledge of the warrant of attachment, nor did he act unintentionally. We have already pointed out that the warrant has been returned On more than one occasion. In addition to that he has also written a letter perturbed by the warrant of attachment. The warrant was also explained to him as pointed out above. There was no justification for him to be perturbed by the warrant of attachment. It is only indicative of the mind of the respondent to disobey the order of the Court and to interfere with the course" of justice and infructuate the order of attachment. 12. In Hoshiar Singh v. Gurbachan Singh and others, A.I.R. 1962 S.C.1089: (1962)2 Crl.L.J. 236 the Supreme Court has held thus: "We do not think that the appellant can take up a plea that as the order had not been officially communicated to them, they were at liberty to ignore it. The appellants were officers whose duty is to uphold the law and if they knew that a valid order had been made by the High Court staying delivery of possession, they disobeyed that order at their peril." In the instant case, as already pointed out, the respondent had the knowledge of the warrant of attachment, which was also explained to him. It was his duty to facilitate the execution of the warrant of attachment or else to immediately approach the Court of the Subordinate Judge seeking time to make payment of the amount due under the award decree. It was his duty to facilitate the execution of the warrant of attachment or else to immediately approach the Court of the Subordinate Judge seeking time to make payment of the amount due under the award decree. On the contrary, he had chosen to obstruct the effecting of the warrant of attachment and returned the same and thereby, he had acted in wilful disobedience of the order of the Sub Court, and such a conduct on his part could very well be imputed against him which is evident from the course adopted in returning the warrant. 13. It is necessary and essential to keep the administration of justice pure and undefiled. Any interference with the due course of justice, without any justification, cannot be tolerated. In K.T.Chandy v. Mansa Ram Zade, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 642: 1974 S.C.C. (Crl.) 210: (1974)1 S.C.C. 414 the Supreme Court has observed thus: "It is true that the law of contempt of court is essential for keeping the administration of justice pure and undefiled. It is also well to remember that our society is also interested in the fulfilment of a man’s expectations under a contract. To that end we have a law of contract in our country. Assigning an unlimited and undefined area to either of them would unduly curtail the area of the other. Each should have a viable area so that justice may hold high her head and contract is not cribed and cramped, but what is the yardstick to measure their area of operation?" (Italics supplied) Thus, me respondent has wilfully disobeyed the order of attachment of the Court and interfered with the course of justice and thereby he has committed an offence of contempt of Court. 14. We may also point out here the conduct of the police. When the Sub Court directed it was the duty of the Superintendent of Police to render police aid for effecting the attachment pursuant to the warrant. Instead, the concerned police informed the Deputy Nazir of the Court that unless the order is received from the Superintendent of Police, police aid would not be provided. This conduct on the part of the police is diprecable. Whether it is the order of the Subordinate Court or of the High Court, it carries the seal and authority of the court, and it has to be obeyed punctually. This conduct on the part of the police is diprecable. Whether it is the order of the Subordinate Court or of the High Court, it carries the seal and authority of the court, and it has to be obeyed punctually. This, the State Government should take note of and ensure that the Court orders whether it be directing police aid or relate to other matters are obeyed and police aid when required is extended without any reluctance. 15. We are also aware of the proviso to Sec.10 of the Act, which provides that "no High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a Court subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860(45 of 1860)". We have already pointed out that the conduct of the respondent has not only resulted in wilful obstruction to the execution of the warrant of attachment, but also amounted to wilful disobedience to the order of the Court and interference with the course of justice. Such conduct does not fall under the proviso to Sec. 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Revashankar, A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 102 similar provision, contained in Sec.3 (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 has been considered.. In Ramakrishna Reddy v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 149: (1952)1 M.L.J. 736:1952 S.C.J. 137: 1952 S.C.R. 425: 1952 M.W.N. 393: 1952 M.W.N. (Crl) 97: 53 Crl.L.J. 832 the aforesaid provision came up for consideration and it was held thus: "In our opinion, the sub-section referred to above excludes the jurisdiction of High Court only in cases where the acts alleged to constitute contempt of a Subordinate Court are punishable as contempt under specific provisions of the Indian Penal Code but not where these acts merely amount to offences of other description for which punishment has been provided for in the Indian Penal Code. This would be clear from the language of the sub-Section which uses the words "where such contempt is an offence" and does not say "where the act alleged to constitute such contempt is an offence." Again in Brahma Prakash Sharma, A.I.R. 1954 S.C.10: (1953)2 M.L.J. 231:1953 S.C.J. 521:1953 S.C.R. 1169:1953 M.W.N. 656: 1953 M.W.N. (Crl) 224: 55 Crl.L.J. 238 the object of contempt proceedings in the light of the provisions contained in Sec.2 (3) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 was explained thus: "It would be only repeating what has been said so often by various Judges that the object of contempt proceedings is not to afford protection to Judges personally from imputations to which they may be exposed as individuals; it is intended to be a protection to the public whose interests would be very much affected if by the act or conduct of any party, the authority of the court is lowered and the sense of confidence which people have in the administration of justice by it is. weakened." Again in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Revashankar, A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 102, after referring to the aforesaid two decisions of the Supreme Court also the decisions rendered by the various High Courts, it was held that there were innumberable ways by which attempts could be made to hinder or obstruct the due administration of justice in court and one type of such interference is found in cases where there is an act which amounts to "Scandalising the court itself." In the instant case, we have already pointed out that there was a direct interference with the course of justice by wilfully disobeying the order of the Court and obstructing the execution of warrant of attachment. As it is not excluded by the proviso to Sec.10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 16. The learned Government Pleader very strenuously contended that the officer has risen to the position from the lower rung, therefore, he may be treated leniently and the apology tendered may be accepted and no punishment may be imposed and that a mere warning in the facts and circumstances of the case would be sufficient. We may point out here that we do not find any bona fides in the apology tendered. We may point out here that we do not find any bona fides in the apology tendered. After contending that he had not committed any contempt of Court, the respondent has stated that in the event the Court comes to the conclusion that the respondent has committed the offence of contempt of Court, he tenders unconditional apology and the same may be accepted. From the averments in the counter affidavit, it is not difficult to hold that there is no sincerity in tendering the apology, apart from the fact that it has not been tendered at the earliest opportunity. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the apology is not acceptable. Further, the apology is not sincere. We are of the view that when it is clearly established that the respondent has wilfully disobeyed the order of the Court and wilfully caused obstruction to the course of justice, dealing with such an act leniently would be nothing but to undermine the course of justice and the majesty of law and the prestige of the Court. Therefore, we are of the view that as the respondent has committed an offence of contempt of Court, he deserves to be punished. The apology tendered by him in the first counter affidavit and in the last counter affidavit as already pointed out cannot be considered to be sincere and bona fide, because after contending that no offence of contempt of Court is committed by him he has tendered the apology. The contention that mere had been go intention of committing any contempt of Court, the respondent has failed to establish the same and we have held that he has committed an act of contempt of Court We accordingly convict him for an offence of contempt of Court. 17. With all this, with a view to see that the future of the Officer is not affected, since he has realised the folly committed by him and assures that he will not commit any such act in future, subsequently the amount due under the award. 17. With all this, with a view to see that the future of the Officer is not affected, since he has realised the folly committed by him and assures that he will not commit any such act in future, subsequently the amount due under the award. The award decree has been paid, we, instead of imposing the punishment of imprisonment, only impose on the respondent a fine of Rs.1,000 (Rupees One Thousand only), which shall be paid within a period of two weeks from this date and in default, he shall be detained in the Civil Prison for a period of two weeks.